Message-ID: <a6014802-7ec0-0470-2dd1-ef650d995a53@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:20:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line
 parameter logic
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=c3=a4nzer?= <michel@daenzer.net>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com>
References: <20211108140648.795268-1-javierm@redhat.com>
 <a8d93a19-c7e6-f651-a1cb-9e2742383c73@suse.de>
 <20211112105641.25a4e1a7@eldfell>
 <CAFOAJEd6wNDF93Z1Y6-62pnRzth9Fg4+56+jqCe2qmHk-adR1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <f215e009-94af-fdb5-9ab9-ec5806a0c526@suse.de>
 <20211112122239.26b3787c@eldfell>
 <5bd4ffa9-f44f-ca34-c346-6c530d31e5ec@suse.de>
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5bd4ffa9-f44f-ca34-c346-6c530d31e5ec@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/12/21 11:57, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:

[snip]

>>>
>>> This is what HW-specific drivers want to query in their init/probing
>>> code. The actual semantics of this decision is hidden from the driver.
>>> It's also easier to read than the other name IMHO
>>
>> Ok, but what is a "native driver"? Or a "non-native driver"?
>> Is that established kernel terminology?
>>
>> I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is
>> loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is
>> the driver that would not consult this function, right?
> 
> We use that term for hw-specific drivers. A 'non-native' driver would be 
> called generic or firmware driver.
> 
> My concern with the 'modeset' term is that it exposes an implementation 
> detail, which can mislead a driver to to the wrong thing: a HW-specifc 
> driver that disables it's modesetting functionality would pass the test 
> for (!modeset). But that's not what we want, we want to disable all of 
> the driver and not even load it.
> 
> How about we invert the test function and use something like
> 
>   bool drm_firmware_drivers_only()
>

That name I think is more self explanatory, so it works for me.

There was also another bikeshed about where to put the function declaration,
I added to <drm/drm_mode_config.h> but with that name I believe that should
be in <drm/drm_drv.h> instead.

Best regards, -- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat